LAPD to Folks with Outstanding Warrants: We Sure Don’t Want to Have to Arrest You!
Labor leaders and immigrant groups are conducting a huge protest near LAX this afternoon and evening. And LAPD appears to have done some of them a favor by making sure some folks with outstanding warrants don’t get arrested.
Four hundred people will be arrested early this evening for blocking Century Boulevard near Los Angeles International Airport, in what could prove to be one of the largest acts of civil disobedience in the city’s history.
. . . .
If the event goes as envisioned, organizers say, it will be a highly choreographed episode of street theater, timed for news broadcasts and peaceful enough to persuade but not enrage the public.
I may not be enraged, but I’m certainly irritated. Here’s why:
Organizers obtained a permit this week for 1,000 to 2,000 marchers. About 400 of them have signed forms pledging to be arrested and have taken a mandatory class that taught them how to remain calm even when screamed at or insulted.
The driver’s license numbers and other personal information of those volunteer arrestees have already been passed on to the LAPD to expedite processing. (Police sent word that six of the volunteers should rethink their participation; though no official reason was given, the six may have outstanding warrants, union officials said).
I don’t get it. Some folks are announcing their intention in advance to commit an illegal (and highly annoying) act: blocking traffic around an airport, which carries a high likelihood of causing a lot of people to miss their flights. Then police discover that some of the incipient lawbreakers have outstanding warrants. Instead of doing what you’d expect — i.e., breaking out the handcuffs and rubbing their hands together in anticipation — the police warn them off???
Police actually have to devote resources to going out and catching people with outstanding warrants. Here, they wouldn’t have to devote any additional resources. The folks are going to be arrested anyway.
It would be like going out fishing, having six large fish jump into the boat, and throwing them back. Actually, it’s dumber than that, because people fish for sport, so throwing back fish you didn’t catch fair and square might make sense. But arresting people on warrants is a serious enterprise that takes police resources to accomplish. If these fish are jumping in the boat, you cuff ’em and take ’em downtown.
We don’t know if the warrants are for something relatively picayune, like traffic tickets, or something more substantive, like DUI or domestic violence — or even something worse. The police aren’t saying. And the L.A. Times is apparently not asking. There is no evidence that the paper put the question to anyone in the LAPD.
If we had a decent paper, reporters would be pressing the police as to whether participants were warned off because they have warrants — and if so, what the warrants were for.
Since we don’t have a decent paper, don’t expect to see a story on it anytime soon.
What if instead they are on parole? A warning seems more justified if that were the case.
Nels Nelson (4a3ac4) — 9/28/2006 @ 6:51 pmWell, if the LA times let us down by not asking why the warnings were sent, you let us down, Patterico, by not even mentioning what kind of penalties there are for this kind of arrest. Do you think we all just know what offenses are being committed and what the penalties are? Come on –inquiring minds want to know.
And will the screwed airline passengers be able to sue the organization and the individuals for damages?
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:41 pmYeah they support allowing more crinimals from mexico into our country frankly i hope some get pissed off enough at these idiots to sring Aa monster truck and scare the hell out of them
krazy kagu (b1eb84) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:44 pmIf a Warrant is issued directing the police to arrest a person should the police have the right to ignore said warrant? Seems to me the lawmakers right the laws, the cops make the arrest, and the judge and/or jury decide innocence or guilt (i.e. jail em, fine em or let em go)
The D.A can decide to prosecute or not based on his/her opinion on the evidence but I don’t think the cops have the legal right to ignore a warrant.
George (d1d63f) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:27 pmThe article would make a good criminal law exam question. 3 points every time you spot a criminal conspiracy.
You could also use it in a legal ethics exam. How many lawyers were involved in the planning of these crimes?
I also liked the fact that 100 students were bused in to be arrested. Is anybody getting class credit?
TomHynes (c41bdd) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:48 pmSo, where do you want to bet the order came from? I’m guessing Villaraigosa’s office. Any takers?
Sean M. (db71f3) — 9/29/2006 @ 2:30 am“you let us down, Patterico, by not even mentioning what kind of penalties there are for this kind of arrest.”
How would he know? He expressly states that he does not know what outstanding warrant issues are in question here, which would determine any potential penalties. That’s the point of the post.
That Carnac post was a joke, you know.
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 9/29/2006 @ 3:42 amWouldn’t it be ironic if the outstanding warrants were for failure to show for an immigration hearing?
JVW (d667c9) — 9/29/2006 @ 8:18 amDog, I didn’t mean that I wanted to know what the warrants were about, I meant I would like to know exactly what is going to happen to a group of people who set up an organization to conspire to break the law and then do break the law. Are they going to be punished or is it just a night in jail and then a finger-wagging from the judge?
The question about civil liability was also a serious one. Maybe Patterico doesn’t feel comfortable talking about these things because of his job. Any other lawyers want to satisfy the curiosity of us non-lawyers?
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 9/29/2006 @ 2:54 pmI particularly like the implicit FU to the judiciary from the mayor (and/or the police commission); the rule of law for thee, not for me and my fellow travelers.
If one wants to consider actions having a corrosive effect on our entire criminal justice system, you’d be hard pressed to find one more toxic than law enforcement picking and choosing which judicial orders (or warrants) to enforce, as a result of political pressure.
Pathetic and appalling. I’ll bet there are some pretty heated discussions around the watercooler at Patterico’s office.
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/29/2006 @ 7:46 pmMaybe the reason has nothing to do with outstanding warrants. It’s possible the union leader was speculating. Maybe these six people have some kind of health condition the cops don’t want to deal with, like heart disease. I’d like to see some official reason.
Eric (e56930) — 10/4/2006 @ 10:31 pm2001 – 2007: LAPD’s Reign of Terror Unchecked
Ending LAPD’s Reign of Brutality & Terror : Remove LA Prosecutor Steve Cooley & Fire Bratton
Los Angeles, May 4, 2007 — The brutal rampage by LAPD in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was culmination of a 6-year old secret but intricate policy by the Bush administration and local forces of the extreme right in reversing attempts to reform LAPD after Rodney King Beating and Rampart Corruption Scandal.
In early 1999, the US Department of Justice under then-US Attorney General Janet Reno began an aggressive plan to impose reform upon LAPD. By the time the LAPD’s Rampart Corruption Scandal became public in 1998, the Clinton Administration had learned that previous attempts to reform one of the largest police departments in the World had largely failed.
In June 1999, rumors began to circulate within the ranks of the LAPD and its powerful union (Police Protective League – PPL) that President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno were about to implement drastic anti-corruption measures against LAPD. At the time, the LAPD and PPL complained that these acts represented the federal government’s attempt to “violate the LAPDs 10th amendment rights” and interfere in LAPD’s “internal affairs.” These rumors, however, were not baseless. During 1999, Ms. Reno’s Assistant US Attorneys in Washington, D.C. were busy drafting a historical federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD in which the Clinton administration was charging LAPD with “endemic corruption and systematic violation of constitutional rights of residents of Los Angeles.” Additionally, at US DOJ headquarters at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C., serious discussions were taking place about using the federal funding of the LAPD as a leverage in imposing anti-corruption reform upon LAPD.
Sensing the warnings of the incoming tsunami from Washington in their direction, the LAPD and its PPL began to brace for a defensive position by attempting to secure the local front. Securing their local front meant getting rid of Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles County District Attorney (DA) who in the post-Rampart LA politics had begun criminal investigation and prosecution of a large number of LAPD officers for corruption and other crimes. Garcetti’s public statements at the time, such as, “I can’t tell you whether we will wind up with three, four or five dirty cops or 25 or more,” were making LAPD and PPL extremely frightened. In a desperate attempt to shield corrupt LAPD officers from Garcetti, LAPD and PPL funded and fielded Republican Steven Lawrence Cooley, an LAPD Reserve Officer, as their own candidate to run against Garcetti for the LA DA position. Public court records from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco show that at the same time the PPL-sponsored Cooley was campaigning to unseat Garcetti, PPL, through its high-powered lawyers, was filing multiple motions and appeals against Attorney General Janet Reno’s attempts to impose a federally mandated reform program upon LAPD. The above multiple attempts by PPL to prevent the Clinton administration from initiating its anti-corruption program proved to be legally frivolous since the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied all of them.
In September 1999, the Republican Cooley began his PPL-funded campaign to unseat DA Garcetti. PPL was against Garcetti’s criminal prosecution of LAPD officers. In his 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti, Cooley received more than $1 million from PPL while publicly speaking against LAPD’s Rampart Corruption Scandal and criticizing Garcetti for not being forceful and efficient enough in his criminal prosecution of the corrupt officers. Of course, Cooley was engaging in blatant public deception since he knew that he had received the $1 million from PPL to unseat Garcetti and thus shield the corrupt LAPD officers from any further criminal prosecution. History would show that Cooley’s 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office was one of the biggest frauds brought against the voters of Los Angeles since at the same time PPL was waging federal court battles against President Clinton’s attempts to fight corruption in LAPD, PPL was paying for Cooley’s campaign and commercials which depicted Garcetti as not forceful enough in fighting the LAPD’s corruption.
On the federal level, significant developments were taking place. Attorney General Reno was putting her final touches on the draft of the federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD. About three weeks before the document was filed in the federal court, on October 11, 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush made the following statement in his televised debate with Al Gore in North Carolina: “One of my concerns, though, is I don’t want to federalize the local police forces. I want to — obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don’t there needs to be a consequence at the federal level.” Bush, however, knew well that according to the Christopher Commission’s Report, the LAPD’s “Internal Affairs” was a source of corruption in itself.
On November 2, 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno filed her historical anti-corruption lawsuit against LAPD in federal court in Los Angeles. LAPD was charged with systemic violations of civil rights, including, “having established a pattern of violating the people’s constitutional rights and arresting residents of Los Angeles without probable cause.” SEE page 2 of the Complaint at: http://www.freemarje.com/US%20Fed%20Lawsuit%20v%20LAPD%2011-03-00.pdf
Nevertheless, two significant historical events followed which reversed the course of anti-corruption attempts at LAPD for the following six years. In fact, these two historical events resulted in emboldening, empowering, and expanding the forces of corruption within the ranks of the LAPD on a gigantic and unprecedented scale. On November 7, 2000, Reserve LAPD Officer Cooley (Republican), with substantial backing from PPL, defeated Gil Garcetti. On December 12, 2000, George Bush was declared as the new President of the United States. On January 1, 2001, Cooley took office as the new District Attorney of Los Angeles. According to the recorded statement of one of the senior Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles, within two weeks after taking office, Cooley walked into the six-man office of Rampart Task Force which Garcetti had set up within the Special Investigations Division of the DA Office and simply said: “wrap it up!” Shortly thereafter the office was closed and all Rampart Corruption Scandal investigations in DA office ended.
The above two historical events had drastic and severely detrimental consequences for the people of Los Angeles. On the federal front, Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2001, the Bush administration brought the federal litigation against LAPD to a screeching halt. The management of the Federal Consent Decree by John Ashcroft and later by Alberto Gonzales became a practice in public deception. All federal efforts to reform LAPD were abandoned and the Bush administration became LAPD’s “partner in war on terror.” Having realized it was now a major force in Los Angeles politics and having successfully rolled back attempts to “interfere in its internal affairs” by both Reno and Garcetti, LAPD and PPL’s tentacles began to rapidly grow into the only remaining component of the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice System, the Criminal Division of Los Angeles County Superior Court system. With full support from the Bush administration, police brutality, misconduct, deception, fraud, perjury, criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, and criminal activities by police officers became institutionalized and achieved new high marks in the history of Los Angeles.
On local level, Cooley shielded corrupt LAPD officers from any and all criminal prosecution. No more LAPD officers were prosecuted. Even when an LAPD officer fired multiple shots at a black 13-year-old boy (Devin Brown) backing a car at 2 miles-per-hour, the prosecutor Cooley refused to prosecute the liable LAPD officer for the boy’s killing. When the LAPDs 250-lb. white Edward Larrigan shot a frail 51 102-lb. 55-year-old mentally ill homeless African-American woman (Margaret Mitchell) in the chest from a distance of several feet away and killed her, Cooley, without ever requesting to examine the six boxes of relevant documents in possession of the attorney for the family of Ms. Mitchell under a federal protective order, said the killing was justified and refused to prosecute even though the Police Commission, on a 3-2 vote, had disagreed. When a disabled black teenager (Donovan Jackson) was beaten up by white LAPD officers on national TV, Cooley and LAPD conspired to prevent a Rodney King type of reaction from the public by deceptively putting the officers on a bogus circus-style criminal trial while at the same time undermined the chances of their conviction by removing a seasoned prosecutor and assigning a young lawyer with no experience in such prosecutions. Cooley further allowed the officer’s seasoned defense lawyer to put up evidence before the jury that the “beating” was a “training issue” and not a criminal act. By botching the trial, Cooley guaranteed that LAPD officers Jeremy Morse and Bijan Darvish would not be convicted. Cooley proved to be a loyal puppet of LAPD. He also began to aggressively bring criminal charges against victims of police misconduct, knowing that winning criminal convictions against victims of LAPD misconduct prevented them from filing future civil rights lawsuits and forever closed chances of investigation for these cases. In his reelection campaign in March 2004, Cooley received more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions, mostly from the LAPD’s PPL. Thomas Higgins, his most serious challenger, had collected $25,000 in campaign contributions. With enough PPL money to send colorful brochures to every LA voter and substantial TV commercials, Cooley easily won his reelection to a second-term as the LAs District Attorney.
During the 2001-2007 Bush-Cooley’s reign of terror in Los Angeles, hundreds of victims of police brutality and police misconduct cases were charged with baseless and fabricated criminal charges. Cooley and LAPD worked together on fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence against the victims. At the same time, LAPD’s PPL, having flexed its political muscles and having realized the extent of its power, began to more actively finance the reelection of those Superior Court judges whom Cooley and PPL viewed as valuable assets in the complex political empire they had built. With federal protection for residents of Los Angeles evaporated under George W. Bush, hundreds of innocent victims were falsely convicted and sent to prison. State convictions guaranteed that LAPD was shielded forever from future civil rights lawsuits. During the above period, no LAPD officers were ever charged with any crime arising from fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence.
An example of this institutionalized policy of terror and criminal activities is in the case of a Swedish woman and mother who was held in pretrial detention for more than four years (2002-2006) based on evidence fabricated by Cooley’s DA office and LAPD. Despite four years of incarceration, the woman refused to plea guilty to the charges fabricated by LAPD and Cooley. The case had begun as a police misconduct case when LAPD officers had entered the woman’s home without a warrant and by mistake had arrested her while she was unconscious from a wrongly prescribed prescription medication. The officers had wrongly assumed the woman was suffering from an illegal drug overdose. Cooley filed criminal charges against the woman in order to cover up the LAPD’s initial misconduct. Further information on this case and the inner workings of Cooley-LAPD’s empire can be viewed at http://www.freemarje.com.
What happened in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was the culmination of LAPD’s reign of terror under Bush-Cooley policy during 2001-2007. During the above period, the residents of Los Angeles were left defenseless against forces of the extreme right which implemented an institutionalized policy built on deception, fraud, perjury, and criminal activities.
The events of May 1, 2007 showed that LAPD with the help of its DA Cooley and under the protection of the Bush administration has succeeded in establishing a police state in the most populous county of the United States. As the video footage of the rampage shows, LAPD officers engage in criminal acts against the population with impunity. The message from the video footage of the assault is clear: LAPD and its thugs exerting undue influence over the largest metropolis of the United States with an iron fist.
It is clear that with substantial support from George W. Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD, PPL, and Cooley have succeeded in transforming the 4,000-square-mile Los Angeles County to an autonomous police state where a brutal junta composed of the LAPD, Cooley, and an army of 600 mostly corrupt judges who owe their reelections to financial contributions from LAPD’s PPL rule. For further information on how various intricate components of this police junta operate in tandem, SEE pages 19-26 at http://www.freemarje.com/Federal%20Complaint%20Filed%20Against%20Defendants.pdf
KELLY MCSWAIN (9845cc) — 5/5/2007 @ 9:05 pmwow…
That’s a hell of a lot of willful idiocy…
I applaude you, Kelly…
I Applaud you.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/5/2007 @ 10:20 pm